Slashdot Mirror
Condor Chick Born In Wild
hank writes "Great news (Yahoo! News link) today on the endangered species front! A condor chick born in the wild is alive and well. Originally, biologists planned on interfering and giving "life support" to the egg; however, biologists were surprisingly pleased to see the father aggressively protecting his young. Wisely, they decided to let nature take control. The chick in Los Padres National Forest in Santa Barbara County is the first conceived, hatched and raised in the wild to survive more than a day. It was 4 days old on Monday. What does this mean for genetic cloning and incubation research? Can nature really repair itself? What do you all think?"
What on earth does a captive-released pair of condors properly incubating their egg have to do with cloning?
'(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Gayest story ever.
How could it be "gay" when the story is about a wild chick?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
When I think of condors and chicks, I think of The Condor in SF - Former home of Carol Doda
This is what the regular /. reader sees from the headline:
"****** Chick **** ** Wild"
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
Genetic engineering can be important because it can allow us to enhance traits that aid survival. Some endangered species are unlikely to recover unless we tamper with the genetic makeup of the population. For example, the reason the cheetah is endangered is because of a long history of inbreeding (which resulted from overhunting). This inbreeding resulted in a population of cheetahs that has a lot of health problems and very little genetic diversity (in ecology terms, this is called a genetic bottleneck). Loss of genetic diversity is bad for evolution because it leaves little for natural selection to work with. In the case of the cheetah, a large number of cubs are born with health problems and die before they reach maturity. Also, because of the loss of genetic diversity, there is nothing for natural selection to work with. So basically, there are two reasons genetic engineering and artificial breeding can be useful in preserving endangered species:
the ones that can't die off
Yup, true enough. Humans are changing the ecology of the planet. Very fast. Organisms that cannot keep up die off. The real question is whether or not we like these changes. I like having birds, whales, trees, and even condors around. I think some conservation is in order.
I'd wager to say that most people probably agree with me. If most folks don't agree with me, then I ask: how much of Earth has to look like L.A. before we change our habits?
This point of view is a lame excuse for not willing to see that the environment gets wasted, or for not wanting to act to to it. There is nothing to worry about if species die out, but species die out with a rate which is several orders of magnitude higher than what is "natural", and that is something to worry about.
As for the condor one could ask whether it is a real important species in the ecosystem. Apparently it isn't. However, there are some other reasons which justify the protection of this bird; it is the largest flying bird on earth, and a very special bird.
Like science? Comics? Wicked...
Funny By Nature
ADAPT is the key word here. The individuals that are best able to ADAPT are not necessarily the strongest individuals. Make sure you make a distinction here. "Strong" and "weak" don't necessarily have anything to do with this.
I also find your blending of fields interesting. Darwin and ecology? Cause and effect. When ecological parameters change, that which can adapt to the changes survive and those which cannot die out.
Your background is even weaker than I originally thought. Don't you have any clue what Darwin discovered? Darwin discovered natural selection, which is what the whole thing you are arguing is based on. And blending fields?? Perhaps you would care to explain to me how in the world one can study ecology without studying Darwin? Darwin's principles are the major driving force in ecology. I'm not blending fields at all. Darwin's findings are central to almost all issues in ecology includign why animals go extinct, why they have certain physical and behavioral characteristics, etc.
"I would love to see how you would demonstrate that the singular cause of the Condor's demise has been industrial man."
I wouldn't say the singular cause is industrial man. But that is definiately a large part of it. More than likely, DDT played a role in this as DDT effects are cumulative throughout the food change and top predators in an ecosystem tend to have the highest levels (and receive the most damage from it).
This depends. There are some species called keystone species. If these particular species die out, they can have destabalizing effects on the entire ecosystem. The problem here is that we often don't know which species are keystone species. Also, we don't know what effects this mass extinction period we are entering will have on the planet in general. So it's best to play it cautious. (truth be known, some of the keystone species are things that no body really careas about. Like some species of bacteria).
"As for the condor one could ask whether it is a real important species in the ecosystem. Apparently it isn't."
You are probably right. The condor is probably not a keystone species, so its loss would not really have any kind of domino effect that destabalized the entire ecosystem. But people like large birds, even if they aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.
In any event, modern Greeks are the product of centuries of dysgenics imposed on them by the Turks. Look up the Janissaries some time. By your reasoning, they were even tougher before that. You may well be right, but who can tell from here?
Similarly, without the data from an autopsy of the dead chick -- was one even performed? -- there's no way of knowing whether it was defective or not.
And the brethren went away edified.
Wine grapes were grown in England through early recorded history. It's too cold now to grow wine grapes in England, therefore "global warming" would be merely the return to the prior normal temperatures.
That is, if "global warming" exists as a human effect at all.
This is the sin of pride, that what you have experienced in your lifetime must therefore be "normal".
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I think it's a wonderful idea to study and document the fall, and rise (I hope), of these species.
.22 rifles would do it, but the Japanese have removed that as a legal option.
However, it is not "bad" that species die off. It's normal. Adaptation is normal too. The falcons nesting on the sides of tall buildings, returning to prey on pidgeons in the place that pidgeons flourish (human cities) is a really neat thing.
It would ease lots of minds if something would prey on the Tokyo crow, I can tell you. Training 12 year olds with
Darwin's discoveries drive rational ecology, not radical ecology. "Global Warming" scares and "human effects are by definition negative" are examples of radical ecology that treats humans as invaders instead of integral to the environment itself.
I'm all for Condors. I'm for saving them by the same methods that have saved cows, ducks, chickens, rhinos and emu have been "saved": Private enterprise.
(background: the most successful rhino breeding is being done for profit, for sale to zoos and hunters. elsewhere, rhino are in really deep trouble)
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
This article from Reason comes to mind:
All environmental problems occur in open-access commons -- areas like rivers, airsheds,
and fisheries -- that no one owns and no one has a responsibility to protect. Political
management has generally been the way we have tried to handle the problems caused by
the institution of open-access commons. The CPC is pointing to how private property can
effectively deal with environmental problems. "An owner who neglects or harms what he
owns is soon out of business and is replaced by somebody better," noted Smith.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I wave my hand and a car goes by. Did my waving my hand cause the car to go by? Gee, by your logic it does.
You might try this article for some actual science instead of "The CO2 Is Rising! Oh No!"
The particular part I like:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase could possibly warm the earth, but it is only about 3.5 percent of all greenhouse gases. Water vapor and clouds make up over 95 percent of greenhouse gases.
Funny thing is, if you "warm the earth", there's more white clouds which reflect sunlight. So is water vapor a "green house" gas, or an "umbrella" gas?
Wow! We need to restrict water vapor! It's a greenhouse gas! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Dude... How do you think they reproduced before we were around to help? :-)
Not just keystone species, it's a good idea to study why any species would become extinct. A change in the inanimate environment, or in competition, is a good thing to know.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
You could address the fallacy. Does water vapor trap heat, yes or no? Do clouds trap heat, yes or no?
If they are not "greenhouse gasses", can you create a definition of such compounds which excludes them?
Or, do you consider human interaction by definition "bad"? Since water vapor and clouds are not human creations (unlike CO2?), they therefore cannot be bad?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Yes, I am aware that CO2 is a naturally occurring substance, required for plants to crack in order to produce carbohydrates, etc.
The point I was trying to make is that the "global warming" extremists cannot comprehend that the earths natural temperature has fluxuated greatly over time, far colder and far warmer. It is the sin of pride to assume that what has been normal for the last 50 years must be normal for everywhere through all time.
The extremists decry how human action is by definition bad, invasive, destructive. Point out that Mt. St. Hellens dumped far more crap into the atmosphere than humanity, they ignore it.
Point out that the nitrates being "fixed" by internal combustion engines, and the CO2 they produce at the same time, is acting as fertilizer for plant groath, they ignore it.
Point out that the forests are now far more pleantiful than they were 100 years ago, that the mid-atmosphere temp has been very stable for as long as it's been measured, or woe be it that humans making the earth unlivable for *humans* is a temporary effect at best, and they treat you as if you were the extremist.
That is why I phrased my statement as I did. The extremists decry how CO2 content is going up, and demand that this "human interference" stop, by force of arms against individuals.
It is not their motivation I call into question, it is the extremism of their conviction that they must inflict their judgement on others, but oh no never let anyone else effect themselves.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
How can you say all that and still say the following:
[T]his is creating a change that causes a long term (and even permanent if we don't reduce emmisions) temperature increase.
The sin of pride, again. Human beings cannot have a "permanent" effect on Earth. We're an aberation, a short-term species. Anything we could do, including total nuclear war, would be cleaned up and erased in less time than it took horses to go from three toes to one.
I'm pretty sure that the people 14,000 years ago at the end of the last ice-age, as their ice-caps were melting, were terrified of the global warming going on. Just like you are.
And with just as much of an attachment to reality.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics